Background

Generative artificial intelligence (“GenAI”) is a powerful emerging technology which is having a transformative impact on society. It has potential for widespread use in the practice of law as it allows for the production of coherent written content quickly and at minimal cost and can assist with a wide range of tasks including the acceleration of legal research, document summarisation and the creation of initial drafts. It can also provide basic legal advice and assistance to those who cannot afford traditional legal services.  

GenAI comes with notable limitations, however, and is capable of producing credible text which is factually inaccurate. It can, for example, conjure up judgments which do not exist, or generate false quotations attributed to genuine authorities. These so-called AI hallucinations are plainly problematic as they may mislead the Court and other parties, waste time and increase legal costs, and risk bringing the administration of justice into disrepute.

Against that backdrop, High Court Practice Direction HC142 on the Responsible Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Court Documents came into operation on 1 September 2026. It does not seek to prohibit the use of GenAI but instead provides welcome guidance on the Court’s expectations concerning the appropriate and responsible use of GenAI tools in connection with legal proceedings, highlights the risks associated with their use and addresses the duties and obligations of parties and their legal representatives when such tools are used. The Practice Direction emphasises the importance of transparency and accountability and sets out consequences for non-compliance.

Overview

The Practice Direction introduces new requirements for litigants, legal practitioners and witnesses designed to promote transparency and independent human verification where court documents are prepared with the assistance of GenAI.  

GenAI is defined as technology or software capable of producing new content including text, images, audio, video data or computer code, usually in response to a user prompt. The Practice Direction accepts that GenAI may aid in the efficient conduct of litigation and enhance access to justice, whilst highlighting the associated risks including inaccuracy, bias, incompleteness, factual errors, and potential loss of confidentiality and privilege. It sets out the obligations which come with GenAI use with a view to safeguarding the integrity of court proceedings.

It should be noted from the outset that the use of GenAI in preparing Court documents does not of itself require disclosure absent a court order to the contrary, subject to certain document-specific requirements which are summarised below It is also the case that GenAI should not be used where information or documents are subject to a court order or undertaking restricting their use, if doing so would create a risk of disclosure contrary to the order or undertaking.

Scope

The Practice Direction applies to all documents used in civil proceedings whether instituted before or after 1 September 2026. These documents include all pleadings, submissions, affidavits, witness statements and experts reports (together, “Court Documents”) generated after the commencement date. The Practice Direction also applies to all persons involved in the proceedings including parties, legal practitioners, litigants in person, witnesses and experts. 

Verification requirement

Content produced using GenAI is required to be verified under human control and supervision. As such, any material submitted to the Court should be: fact-checked and proofread, edited and adapted to meet the circumstances of the case, and verified to ensure that any references to case law, legislation, textbooks or articles actually exist and stand for the legal propositions attributed to them. Particular care should be taken to ensure that exhibits, images and recordings are authentic and as represented.  

Document-specific requirements   

• Pleadings: all facts and chronologies must be verified, claims for relief must be based on proper legal principles, and legal authorities must be checked to ensure they exist and support the proposition for which they are cited.

• Submissions: where GenAI tools are used in their preparation, all legal authorities, citations, quotations and references must be independently verified using authoritative sources.

• Affidavits and witness statements:  a declaration must appear in one of the opening paragraphs confirming that GenAI has not been used to generate the substantive content, including by altering, embellishing strengthening or diluting or rephrasing the evidence, and that the document reflects personal knowledge and recollection. Use of GenAI for administrative or ancillary purposes such as formatting does not prevent the declaration being made.

• Expert reports: a declaration that GenAI has not been used for the purpose of generating the substantive content of the report and that the report reflects the expert’s own opinions, knowledge and evidence must be included. Where GenAI has been used for drafting, analysing, interpreting or generating the substantive content, the expert must disclose the nature and extent of that use, so the Court and parties can assess the reliability, independence and evidential weight of the expert’s opinion.

Resolving potential issues

A two-step process has been established for addressing concerns regarding the accuracy of Court Documents, whether or not potentially due to the use of GenAI tools.  If a party identifies a potential issue with Court Documents generated by another party, they should bring the issue to the other party’s attention in the first instance and, absent an appropriate response within a reasonable period, bring it to the Court’s attention.

If a party or its legal representatives identify an issue with the accuracy of their own Court Documents, they must notify the other parties and the Court without delay, explaining the issue, substituting clean and marked-up versions, and bearing the associated costs absent a court order to the contrary.

Consequences of non-compliance

Failure to comply with the Practice Direction may have significant consequences including rejection or disregard of material, strike-out of claims or defences and adverse court orders.  Legal practitioners may in addition be referred to their relevant professional or regulatory body or have a costs order made against them personally.  

Regular review

The introduction of this Practice Direction provides a useful framework for legal practitioners in respect of the use of GenAI in Court Documents in High Court proceedings. Circuit Court Practice Direction 32 was introduced on 21 September 2026 and should be consulted in relation to the use of GenAI in Court Documents before the Circuit Court. It largely mirrors the High Court’s parallel guidelines although some notable differences do apply.

GenAI technology is rapidly evolving and accordingly these Practice Directions will be kept under regular review and may be amended or adapted from time to time.

Conclusion

The Practice Directionprovides welcome guidance on the Court’s expectations concerning the appropriate and responsible use of GenAI tools in connection with legal proceedings. In a time of rapid advancement and more widespread use of GenAI, its introduction is timely, providing helpful guidance and clarity for the benefit of all parties to legal proceedings.